The Supreme Court of India has explained that the inheritance rights of daughters from Scheduled Tribes are governed by their specific customary laws, not the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, due to an explicit statutory exclusion in the Act itself. While setting aside a directive from the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had applied the Act to tribal women, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra reaffirmed this long-standing legal position.
The Court held that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act acts as a clear bar, preventing its application to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government issues a specific notification to the contrary.
The case, Nawang & Anr. vs. Bahadur & Ors., was a civil appeal against a judgment and order dated June 23, 2015, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court’s decision expunged the specific directions contained in paragraph 63 of the High Court’s judgment.
Background of the Case
The appeal before the Supreme Court was limited in scope, challenging a specific direction issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. In its judgment, the High Court had ruled on the inheritance rights of women in the state’s tribal areas, intending to prevent “social injustice.” Paragraph 63 of the High Court’s order stated:
“The upshot of the appreciation of the evidence and the law discussed hereinabove is that daughters in the tribal areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh shall inherit the property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as per customs and usages in order to prevent the women from social injustice and prevention of all forms of exploitation. The laws must evolve with the times if societies are to progress…”
The appellants challenged this direction before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Explaining its decision, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in issuing the directive. The bench observed that the issue of the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act to tribal areas was “neither directly nor substantially involved” in the case before the High Court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the directions “were not emanating from any one of the issues framed by the Court or pleas raised/agitated by the parties.”
The core of the Supreme Court’s reasoning rested on the explicit statutory bar contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court cited Section 2(2) of the Act, which reads:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
The bench emphasized that the “words of the section are explicit.” To support this long-settled legal position, the Court referred to its recent decision in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3810, titled “Tirith Kumar & Ors. vs. Daduram & Ors.” and the earlier case of Madhu Kishwar vs. State of Bihar. In Madhu Kishwar, the Court had noted that sub-section (2) of Section 2 “significantly provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe.”
The judgment reiterated that custom-governed tribals are not automatically subject to the Hindu Succession Act, the Indian Succession Act, or Shariat law.
Final Decision
Based on its analysis of the statutory provisions and established precedent, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court could not have issued the directions in paragraph 63 of its judgment.
The Court ordered: “In this view of the matter, paragraph 63 of the impugned judgment / order dated 23.06.2015 containing directions are set aside to be expunged from the record.”
The civil appeal was disposed of accordingly. The Court acknowledged the assistance of Ms. Rebecca Mishra, learned amicus curiae, and Shri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
